Jump to content

StandFirm11

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About StandFirm11

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, but issued an order I'll paste here: "The Sheriff, having considered the written submissions and thereafter having heard from both parties, finds the respondent liable to the claimant in the sum of £1261.96 together with the expenses of the claim in the sum of £150 and thereafter orders the progress of this case to be paused to allow parties to enter into repayment negotiations. This means that all upcoming hearings in this case have been cancelled. No procedural steps may be taken in this case until the case has been restarted. Either party can ask for this to happen b
  2. Also I thought I would add as well, another mistake I think I've made in this. The Sheriff did not grant decree as I explained it would impact my future job prospects. Instead the Sheriff has paused the case and issued a "finding" basically an order finding me liable for the full sum + £150 expenses. I've now to come to an agreement with Nolans/cabot regarding repayment in affordable amounts. My worry now is that Nolans and Cabot will start to fire on loads of interest, additional charges, costs etc. Any advice you can offer here? I had to contact nolans tod
  3. If they hadn't thrown "repayable on demand" on the table at the last second, I'm fairly certain the Sheriff was about to dismiss the case.
  4. Yeah I think the Sheriff wasn't 100% clued up on it, I relentlessy kept focusing on section 87 for the above reasons. It was going my way until they brought "repayable on demand on to the table". Like you say it had never been mentioned in any of their submissions or docs, so not something I was clued up on. It was at this point the Sheriff dismissed the requirement for the DN. I tried to keep it on the table but the Sheriff made 2 points. - They are not trying to enforce a security - The agreement has not been terminated, but assigned to Cabot who are simply askin
  5. What I should have done if I prepared correctly, was be able to explain to the Sheriff why repayable on demand applies to overdraft facililites and not credit card agreements. This was my first time at a hearing ever, I was nervous and getting questioned on one of the only things I hadn't prepared for. At least I know now and this should be useful for anyone else, you have to prepare for everything coming up. I feel if I explained that correctly, the Sheriff would have went back to the DN notice and dismissed the claim as the Sheriff had already concluded that a presrib
  6. I also just wanted to say a huge thanks to DX and all the other support I received for this. Losing was likely my fault as I hadn't fully prepared for everything that might have been thrown at me. I realise now that I should have challenged the "repayment on demand" argument for Nolans as this relates to overdrafts and not credit cards. A very costly mistake for me but hopefully this is something others can learn from too. Also, I believe the sheriff was very close to dismissing (I honestly thought he was just about to) as he was asking Nolans if a DN had been issu
  7. Hey Dx, so I lost, probably my fault but nothing I can do about it. I explained every point regarding Section 87/88. Sheriff did not agree that enforcement of a security is court action and did not agree that default notice is required when assigning all rights. Nolans argued that sums were "repayable on demand" and the agreement was not terminated but only assigned to Cabot. The Sheriff agreed with this. I argued that for the debt to have sold, the agreement must have been terminated and therefore a DN is required. Sheriff stopped me and advised it has been assigned
  8. Thanks Dx, just had a read, interesting stuff. I guess the one thing going against me for this is that it is a telephone hearing due to new covid process, so they actually don't have to factor in additional costs of going to a hearing etc. So it costs them nothing really to pursue claims to a hearing just now. So I think there's close to 0% chance that they pull out before the hearing. I just need to keep the focus around the DN issue. I also think the sheriff is quite a new/recent appointment so I'm not sure if that's something that might go against me. At
  9. Thanks Dx, what happens if I lose? Can the amount increase? Also I was thinking if the Sheriff does side with Nolans, since they state they are cleaming arrears, shouldn't they only be enititled to a smaller sum? They sent a copy of notice of arrears (from OC) which was dated about 14 days before the account got assigned to Cabot, and they were asking for about £270 in arrears to be paid.
  10. Their list of authorities/docs is same as they list in their written statement. 1. Section 87 of CCA 2. Promontoria RAM –v- Moore 2017 Court of Session 88 3. Law of Contract in Scotland, McBryde Paragraph 12.02. Both case law is in reference to assignation, nothing in relation default notice.
  11. Just received email from nolans to court, copying me in. "Please find attached herewith, Written Submissions for the Claimants. Authorities are currently being collated and will be lodged with the Court and Respondent by tomorrow. However, to give advance notice, List of Authorities is attached herewith so that the parties at least know which authorities are being relied upon by the Pursuers. The Respondent has been copied into this email by way of intimation and final submissions will also be posted to the Respondent. Draft submissions were also intimated by post.
  12. Also, I thought I should add I need to submit this within the next hour or so to reasonably comply with the sheriff order, by close of business 11/11.
  13. Thanks Dx, I've tidied it up a bit and added about the failure to exchange. I will also submit the CCA exert as a doc for the sheriff to refer to. Do you think this is clear enough and has enough information? SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT.docx
  14. Thanks Dx. I've removed the repitition, it now reads as a timeline through points 1 - 8, then I clarify issue regarding the default notice and itimation of assigment. SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT.docx
×
×
  • Create New...